Short-Stay Units vs Routine Admission From the Emergency Department in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: The SSU-AHF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: More than 80% of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute heart failure (AHF) are hospitalized. With more than 1 million annual hospitalizations for AHF in the US, safe and effective alternatives are needed. Care for AHF in short-stay units (SSUs) may be safe and more efficient than hospitalization, especially for lower-risk patients, but randomized clinical trial data are lacking. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of SSU care vs hospitalization in lower-risk patients with AHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial randomly assigned low-risk patients with AHF 1:1 to SSU or hospital admission from the ED. Patients received follow-up at 30 and 90 days post discharge. The study began December 6, 2017, and was completed on July 22, 2021. The data were analyzed between March 27, 2020, and November 11, 2023. Intervention: Randomized post-ED disposition to less than 24 hours of SSU care vs hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study was designed to detect at least 1-day superiority for a primary outcome of days alive and out of hospital (DAOOH) at 30-day follow-up for 534 participants, with an allowance of 10% participant attrition. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment was truncated at 194 participants. Before unmasking, the primary outcome was changed from DAOOH to an outcome with adequate statistical power: quality of life as measured by the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). The KCCQ-12 scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life. Results: Of the 193 patients enrolled (1 was found ineligible after randomization), the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (14.8) years, 79 (40.9%) were women, and 114 (59.1%) were men. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. The mean (SD) KCCQ-12 summary score between the SSU and hospitalization arms at 30 days was 51.3 (25.7) vs 45.8 (23.8) points, respectively (P = .19). Participants in the SSU arm had 1.6 more DAOOH at 30-day follow-up than those in the hospitalization arm (median [IQR], 26.9 [24.4-28.8] vs 25.4 [22.0-27.7] days; P = .02). Adverse events were uncommon and similar in both arms. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings show that the SSU strategy was no different than hospitalization with regard to KCCQ-12 score, superior for more DAOOH, and safe for lower-risk patients with AHF. These findings of lower health care utilization with the SSU strategy need to be definitively tested in an adequately powered study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03302910.

Kidney function as a key driver of the pharmacokinetic response to high-dose L-carnitine in septic shock.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Levocarnitine (L-carnitine) has shown promise as a metabolic-therapeutic for septic shock, where mortality approaches 40%. However, high-dose (≥ 6 grams) intravenous supplementation results in a broad range of serum concentrations. We sought to describe the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of high-dose L-carnitine, test various estimates of kidney function, and assess the correlation of PK parameters with pre-treatment metabolites in describing drug response for patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Population PK analysis was done with baseline normalized concentrations using nonlinear mixed effect models in the modeling platform Monolix. Various estimates of kidney function, patient demographics, dose received, and organ dysfunction were tested as population covariates. DATA SOURCE: We leveraged serum samples and metabolomics data from a phase II trial of L-carnitine in vasopressor-dependent septic shock. Serum was collected at baseline (T0); end-of-infusion (T12); and 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment initiation. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Patients were adaptively randomized to receive intravenous L-carnitine (6 grams, 12 grams, or 18 grams) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final dataset included 542 serum samples from 130 patients randomized to L-carnitine. A two-compartment model with linear elimination and a fixed volume of distribution (17.1 liters) best described the data and served as a base structural model. Kidney function estimates as a covariate on the elimination rate constant (k) reliably improved model fit. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), based on the 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation with creatinine and cystatin C, outperformed creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) and older CKD-EPI equations that use an adjustment for self-identified race. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose L-carnitine supplementation is well-described by a two-compartment population PK model in patients with septic shock. Kidney function estimates that leverage cystatin C provided superior model fit. Future investigations into high-dose L-carnitine supplementation should consider baseline metabolic status and dose adjustments based on renal function over a fixed or weight-based dosing paradigm.

Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.

Monotherapy Anticoagulation to Expedite Home Treatment of Patients Diagnosed With Venous Thromboembolism in the Emergency Department: A Pragmatic Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to test if low-risk emergency department patients with vitamin K antagonist (venous thromboembolism [VTE]; including venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [PE]) can be safely and effectively treated at home with direct acting oral (monotherapy) anticoagulation in a large-scale, real-world pragmatic effectiveness trial. METHODS: This was a single-arm trial, conducted from 2016 to 2019 in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies guideline in 33 emergency departments in the United States. Participants had newly diagnosed VTE with low risk of death based upon either the modified Hestia criteria, or physician judgment plus the simplified PE severity index score of zero, together with nonhigh bleeding risk were eligible. Patients had to be discharged within 24 hours of triage and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Effectiveness was defined by the primary efficacy and safety outcomes, image-proven recurrent VTE and bleeding requiring hospitalization >24 hours, respectively, with an upper limit of the 95% CI for the 30-day frequency of VTE recurrence below 2.0% for both outcomes. RESULTS: We enrolled 1421 patients with complete outcomes data, including 903 with venous thrombosis and 518 with PE. The recurrent VTE requiring hospitalization occurred in 14/1421 (1.0% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%]), and bleeding requiring hospitalization occurred in 12/1421 (0.8% [0.4%-1.5%). The rate of severe bleeding using International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria was 2/1421 (0.1% [0%-0.5%]). No patient died, and serious adverse events occurred in 2.5% of venous thrombosis patients and 2.3% of patients with PE. Medication nonadherence was reported by patients in 8.0% (6.6%-9.5%) and was associated with a risk ratio of 6.0 (2.3-15.2) for VTE recurrence. Among all patients diagnosed with VTE in the emergency department during the period of study, 18% of venous thrombosis patients and 10% of patients with PE were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy treatment of low-risk patients with venous thrombosis or PE in the emergency department setting produced a low rate of bleeding and VTE recurrence, but may be underused. Patients with venous thrombosis and PE should undergo risk-stratification before home treatment. Improved patient adherence may reduce rate of recurrent VTE. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03404635.

Septic Shock Nonsurvivors Have Persistently Elevated Acylcarnitines Following Carnitine Supplementation.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis-induced metabolic disturbances include hyperlactatemia, disruption of glycolysis, protein catabolism, and altered fatty acid metabolism. It may also lower serum L-carnitine that supports the use of L-carnitine supplementation as a treatment to ameliorate several of these metabolic consequences. METHODS: To further understand the association between L-carnitine-induced changes in serum acylcarnitines, fatty acid metabolism and survival, serum samples from (T0), 12 hfollowing completion (T24) of L-carnitine (n = 16) or placebo (n = 15) administration, and 48 h (T48) after enrollment from patients with septic shock enrolled in a randomized control trial were assayed for acylcarnitines, free fatty acids, and insulin. Data were analyzed comparing 1-year survivors and nonsurvivors within treatment groups. RESULTS: Mortality was 8 of 16 (50%) and 12 of 15 (80%) at 1 year for L-carnitine and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Free carnitine, C2, C3, and C8 acylcarnitines were higher among nonsurvivors at enrollment. L-Carnitine treatment increased levels of all measured acylcarnitines; an effect that was sustained for at least 36 h following completion of the infusion and was more prominent among nonsurvivors. Several fatty acids followed a similar, though less consistent pattern. Glucose, lactate, and insulin levels did not differ based on survival or treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: In human patients with septic shock, L-Carnitine supplementation increases a broad range of acylcarnitine concentrations that persist after cessation of infusion, demonstrating both immediate and sustained effects on the serum metabolome. Nonsurvivors demonstrate a distinct metabolic response to L-carnitine compared with survivors, which may indicate preexisting or more profound metabolic derangement that constrains any beneficial response to treatment.